The Supreme Court Gave Itself Huge Extra Powers and It’s Becoming a Big Problem
Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Law, justice, and the courts - A podcast by Slate Podcasts - Saturdays
![](https://is1-ssl.mzstatic.com/image/thumb/Podcasts112/v4/c0/5b/7d/c05b7d4d-67d8-6db6-61ed-77c5e73f6b6c/mza_11655183063852748279.jpg/300x300bb-75.jpg)
There’s an ever-growing queue of cases concerning Donald Trump headed for the Supreme Court that threaten to further dent the legitimacy of an institution that has tumbled in the public’s estimation in the last few years. This week’s show examines some of the interlocking issues raising the already sky-high stakes at One, First Street. First, Dahlia Lithwick kicks off the show with an update from Slate’s Law of Trump chief correspondent Jeremy Stahl about arguments in Trump’s immunity appeal at the DC Circuit Court this week. Next, we turn to a conversation with Professor Ben Johnson, an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Florida Levin College of Law. He recently wrote about the very long history of how the Supreme Court granted itself vast power to shape the law and policy by picking and choosing not only which cases it would hear, but also which questions it would answer when it hears those cases. Next week’s arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v Raimundo are a case in point, and the question of questions also poses a conundrum for a court in a downward legitimacy spiral, as a parade of Trump cases head toward the High Court. In this week’s Amicus Plus segment, Dahlia is joined by Slate’s Jeremy Stahl to discuss the bread and circus of closing arguments in the Trump Organization civil fraud trial in New York, and the next phase of litigation involving the former President and E Jean Carroll that gets underway next week. Sign up for Slate Plus now to listen and support our show. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices